Thanks Allen
> BTW, its interesting that Digitalk's VMs did not have an explicit
> thisContext operation and never bothered to have explicit context
> objects. When necessary, the execution stack was reified into
> unstructured array objects. If Smalltalk code needed to analyze
> these reified stacks they had to do all the work to parse them into
> distinct activation records. Of course, using some context-like
> facade objects was a big help to such stack processing. In
> hindsight, the absence of thisContext never seemed to be a major
> impediment for VisualSmalltalk and its absence gave the VM designer
> a bit more flexibility in the design of the actual execution
> environment.
do you think that seaside could have been built on top Digitalk?
I have the impression that it would have been more difficult. Do I
interpret correctly that in Digitalk you could not
change the stack from within Smalltalk?
Stef